Search Results

The kit is intended for the quantitation of lambda free light chains in serum and urine on Binding Site SPAPLUS. Measurement of free light chains in serum aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinaemia, AL amyloidosis, light chain deposition dissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. Measurement of free light chains in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinaemia, AL amyloidosis and light chain deposition with other laboratory and clinical findings.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification from the FDA, indicating that the device, Freelite® Human Lambda Free Kit, has been deemed substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of document typically does not contain detailed studies, acceptance criteria, or performance data as it's a notification of substantial equivalence, not a detailed clinical trial report or a comprehensive technical specification.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, and expert involvement is not present in the provided text.

Here's what can be inferred or stated based on the document's content:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   • Not provided. The document states "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification... and have determined the device is substantially equivalent...". It does not include specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria for the Freelite® Human Lambda Free Kit itself. Substantial equivalence is often based on demonstrating that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily by meeting pre-defined quantitative acceptance criteria in this document.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Not provided. The document does not describe any specific test set data or its provenance.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience):

   • Not provided. No information about ground truth establishment or experts is included.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • Not provided. There is no mention of an adjudication method as no test set details are given.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This device is an "Immunoglobulin (light chain specific) immunological test system" intended for the quantitation of free light chains in serum and urine. It is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant to this type of device.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • Not explicitly stated, but implicitly "yes" as an IVD. As an in vitro diagnostic kit, the device itself performs the "algorithm" (i.e., the chemical and immunological reactions and detection) to quantify free light chains. Its performance is measured directly, often against a reference method or known concentrations, rather than being part of a human-in-the-loop system in the way AI algorithms are evaluated. However, the document does not provide details of such standalone performance studies.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • Not provided. The document does not specify how ground truth was established for any studies that may have been submitted for the 510(k). For an IVD, ground truth would typically involve reference methods, confirmed clinical diagnoses, or established standards for protein quantification.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This is an in vitro diagnostic kit, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that typically uses a "training set" in the computational sense. If any form of 'training' or calibration was done for the assay, the sample size or details are not mentioned.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. See explanation for #8.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter acknowledges the submission and declares substantial equivalence. It is a regulatory document and does not contain the detailed technical and clinical study results that would provide answers to most of your specific questions. These details would typically be found in the manufacturer's 510(k) submission itself, which is not publicly available in its entirety without a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Ask a specific question about this device

This kit is intended for the quantitation of lambda free light chains in serum and urine on the Roche Hitachi 911 and Hitachi 912. Measurement of the various amounts of the different types of light chains aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myelomas, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia and connective tissue diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) summary (Re: K023131) does not contain the specific information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria.

The document is a clearance letter from the FDA, stating that "FREELITE Human Lambda Free Kit for Use on the Hitachi 911/912 Analyzer" is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. It defines the indications for use but does not detail the performance metrics, study design, or results that would demonstrate the device's accuracy or efficacy.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes, expert details, adjudication methods, MRMC study results, standalone performance, or training set details based on the information given. This type of information would typically be found in the 510(k) submission itself or a more detailed performance study report.

Ask a specific question about this device